Friday, March 12, 2010

Regular readers are familiar with the British author Paul Weston, who has contributed a number of essays to Gates of Vienna in the past (see the links at the bottom of this page for his other posts).

Mr. Weston is now standing as a candidate for UKIP in the General Election for Cities of London and Westminster. Any British readers in that constituency should take note: there is a real alternative to the cowards and liars from the three major parties who comprise the usual “choice” in British elections

Ethnically Cleansing the Englishby Paul Weston

“A West which has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles”

It is understandable that the vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate the indigenous population of England under the age of 40 to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.

Understandable, admittedly, but if these recipients of a progressive education and 24/7 cradle-to-grave state-sponsored brainwashing could remove their liberal blinkers and gaze in horror at their surroundings through the eyes of their grandparents, then they could only have themselves to blame, because their dispossession was carried out in full view of those that would not see, and in retrospect how could there be any other outcome than gradual extinction when one considers exactly what out socialist rulers have carried out over the last few decades?

1.

Identified a small yet wealthy country populated by a rapidly declining indigenous race representing less than 1% of the global population, and whose territorial homeland makes up less than 1% of global habitable area.

2.

Established a Welfare State with a legal requirement to provide free housing, food, education, health, translation services and pin money to those in need, with the most needy being judged solely on the number of children they have.

3.

Thrown open the doors of this tiny country to the teeming billions of the poverty-stricken third world, whilst making sure the multiple wives of Muslim males fully understood that the more children they produced, the bigger the house and welfare cheque they would receive from the State, even though polygamy is illegal in England.

4.

Encouraged the new arrivals to take pride in the culture and religion of the third-world country they had escaped from and “educated” them into developing an unhealthy animosity toward their host country’s imperialist and oppressive past.

5.

Demonised the ancient and indigenous population as institutionally racist from the age of five and enacted “hate” laws which are then predominately used to criminalise and silence the indigenous people who speak out against their territorial and cultural dispossession.

6.

Praised multiculturalism as a positive and Islam as a religion of peace, then sat back to watch the results of their social experiment — what could possibly go wrong?

Liberal progressives residing in fine mansions on Hampstead Heath will tell you nothing could go wrong; that mass immigration is nothing other than a positive boon, an unarguable and incontrovertible truth that must be patiently and condescendingly explained to the uneducated and the unwashed, even as the Arabella Allendes and Montmorency Guevaras over-glamorise and under-pay the scurrying, forelock tugging, cute little brown people whose multi-hued efforts in tending to the gardens, kitchen, laundry and children of the servant owning socialist class enable the latter to do the more important things in life, such as denouncing capitalism in between producing money making yet soul-destroying reality TV shows.

For the white working class, however, those long-forgotten stalwarts of the country who failed to play their designated role in the long term plans of Mr Marx and Mr Engels, thereby earning the enduring hatred of the cuckolded intellectuals, it means nothing other than population replacement, or in the cruder yet more honest language of the betrayed working man rarely encountered at progressive Hampstead dinner parties, ethnic cleansing.

Is this too strong a description? Patricia Morgan of The Salisbury Review doesn’t think so. In 2006 she wrote an article entitled Ethnic Cleansing in East London which focussed primarily on Tower Hamlets and the dispossession of white working-class Londoners who, having survived Adolf Hitler and the Luftwaffe, subsequently failed to hold back the tidal wave of Socialism and multiculturalism so avidly promoted by the British Labour Party.

When one of my old Labour Party acquaintances expressed anxiety over Islamic terrorism, I asked him why he had always been so keen on getting as many immigrants here as possible. He told me that he had been ‘trying to make the revolution‘. So, while it had not been possible to storm Buckingham Palace and set up Soviets in Westminster, you could still change the population and supplant the hated ‘other’.

But as with all Socialist policies, the anti-Midas touch of the Liberal/Left duly performed as it has always performed, and the hated “other” turned out not be the bowler-hatted bourgeoisie, but the cloth-capped working class English themselves, whose naïve belief in Socialism’s promise of a Brave New World failed to understand the chosen people were not white but brown, not Christian but Islamic, and not English but members of any third-world race whose culture was irredeemably at odds with that of the host culture.

Patricia Morgan goes on to describe the accelerating displacement of the indigenous East-Enders, as the new arrivals from Bangladesh went straight to the head of the housing queue by dint of their family size, averaging in good Muslim tradition seven children per wife. You will note I do not say per couple, because many Muslim men in Tower Hamlets routinely have four wives each, all “legally” supported by the British State in order they may father up to twenty-eight children in a literal tsunami of polygamous demographic warfare imported from one-well villages in Bangladesh to the streets of our forefathers via Heathrow Terminal 1.

Frank Dobson, a Labour MP and traitor who attained Ministerial rank in Tony Blair’s cabinet, was on hand to astutely encourage the displacement of his party’s historical core vote. Speaking to a Bangladeshi audience in Tower Hamlets a few years ago, he encouraged them to help themselves to everything on offer from the State; nothing was too much, and no matter how much was taken, it could never fully recompense the oppressed of the non-white world for the misery and depredations they had historically suffered under the boot of the racialist-imperialist-oppressor that was Britain.

And today we live with the results of this treason and betrayal. Tower Hamlets is now called “Banglatown” where, with the exception of a few vicars otherwise known as clerical punch bags, there are virtually no whites left, just as there are very few whites in many other areas of London where the non-white population now amounts to 42% with a full one-third of all “Londoners” born outside the UK.

If you think words such as colonisation, population replacement and ethnic cleansing are a tad too strong, or perhaps even xenophobic, then please take a look at this video of cultural enrichment shot in the streets of Wembley, yet another area of London which the indigenous race has quietly vacated in a wave of white flight that in 2007 saw 340,000 Londoners celebrate diversity by foot, train, boat and plane.

And England’s other cities are going precisely the same way in precisely the same manner. The non-indigenous birth rate now averages an extraordinary 35% nationally, which realistically means 60-70% in the cities alone, thus consigning indigenous English children in Birmingham, Bradford, Oldham, London, Luton and Leicester to an ethnic minority in their own land where up to 150 different languages are spoken in their schools; a fate awaiting English children in all our cities and towns within a decade, and the entire country before 2030.

Tracking ethnic demographics is not an exact science, but it is generally recognised that the ethnic minority population of Britain is approximately 15% which equates to 9 million out of a population of 60 million.

However, the indigenous British population contains many old people, leaving only 50% of the population under 40 years of age, whilst the non-indigenous population tend to be much younger by dint of their higher birth rate, with 75% typically representing those aged under 40.

If we use these statistics, the population of Great Britain under the age of 40 looks like this:

Indigenous Population 2009:

25.5 million

Non-Indigenous Population 2009:

6.75 million

But the current birth rate differentials cause the indigenous population to decline by 25% per generation whilst the non-indigenous population has historically doubled per generation, with the Muslim population growing ten times faster than the rest of society.

Approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants enter England every year in order to reach government productivity targets.

If we project this data forward to 2030, the figures look like this:

Indigenous Population 2030:

15 million

Non-Indigenous Population 2030:

23.5 million

To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.

These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardianreported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardianpredicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.

The card-carrying NUJ journalist who penned the article was no doubt loath to take into account the racial and cultural dispossession of his contemporaries under the age of 40, nor could he foresee the massive increase in immigration since 2000, nor indeed the unmentioned and rather curious instance of population replacement taking place in England alone — Scotland and Wales having escaped the fate Scottish politicians have inflicted on the Auld Enemy.

Another fact rarely mentioned but no less pertinent is that Socialists always lie. The figures used for this article are sourced from a government that has a vested interest in keeping the real horror of what they have been up to from the voters. Only a handful of marginally honest Labour politicians will actually admit the numbers are far higher than official figures suggest, yet they still deny any knowledge as to the real numbers of foreigners in the country.

The Independent suggested the population could already be as high as 80 million, based on supermarket food sales, a figure borne out by the number of National Insurance cards in existence, which are essential if you wish to work or draw benefits. Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis tells us there are 76 million NI cards equating to 29 million over and above eligible British citizens.

One only has to walk around our towns and cities to realise that population replacement is a substantive and rapidly accelerating fact. British MP Ann Cryer, who represents Keighley, a town near Bradford, estimates that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over the last four years to work, study or marry, with imported wives making up 80% of all marriages in her area, where local police chiefs describe community cohesion between the indigenous and the non-indigenous tribes as “nerve-jangling.”

The anger amongst the indigenous working classes is palpable, and it is growing. As the working class EDL take to the streets stentoriously chanting “We want our country back, we want our culture back” and the middle class socialist students who joined the Islamist-infiltrated UAF — as a sop to their inability to score with either a football or a member of the opposite sex — respond with girlishly high pitched squeals of “Nazi scum off our streets”, then I see no reason to defer my prediction of European civil war by 2025.

British Home Secretary Alan Johnson does not share my apocalyptic vision of potential civil unrest, claiming he did not lie awake at night worrying about the prospect of a 70 million British population and that he enjoyed living in a multicultural society; but now we know this is just a lie to facilitate a far greater evil. Perhaps Mr Johnson’s attention should be drawn to the UN’s definition of genocide:

Article 2:

In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such:

[…]

2c:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…

Although the UN did not really draw up their charters with the best interests of white people in mind, that does not mean they can be ignored. When Bonnie Greer, a foreign, feisty feminist of colour had the effrontery to tell an outnumbered and visibly intimidated Nick Griffin on “Question Time” that there was no such thing as the indigenous English people, she was greeted with wild applause by the baying audience of hand-picked BBC rent-a-mob impartiality, but was she aware that her denial of a nationality and culture to whites that was afforded to all non-whites was covered by another UN Declaration?

Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b)

Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(d)

Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e)

Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Bearing in mind the European Union wishes to import another twenty million migrants from Asia and Africa into the EU, when our children are not only rapidly approaching an ethnically cleansed and ethnic minority status, but are also brainwashed into accepting the dispossession of their nationality, their territory and their culture, then perhaps a Hampstead Thinker could explain to me why it is “racist” to resist such a genocidal political policy, and why various UN Declarations quoted with enormous reverence when applied to the Palestinians and various other pets of the socialist elite are deemed inapplicable when it is the indigenous English who are the genuine victims of ethnic cleansing.

But England of course is just a microcosm of what is a global phenomenon. The third world is booming and exporting its youth bulge to the first world, bringing with it a religion and a culture unsuited to democracy and peaceful co-existence. This can only lead to catastrophe for the indigenous populations. We have seen what happened after the Islamic takeover of majority Christian Lebanon; a 15 year religious civil war that took the lives of close to 10% of the population and wounded 33% — half of whom suffered from lifetime disabilities. So what exactly is the rationale behind importing Islam to the West?

Liberals tell us colonialism was evil, so why is the colonisation of white countries by non-white peoples — in far greater numbers than whites were ever sent to non-white countries — a matter of celebration? In 2050 the streets of Pakistani and Bangladeshi cities will be thronged with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis; there will be no white people there, just as there will be no white people on the streets of London, Luton, Paris, Rotterdam, Brussels, Malmö, etc. etc.

The Jean Raspail quote at the beginning of this article should not be taken lightly. Whites made up almost 30% of the global population in 1950, but by 2050 they will be down to single digits, and producing just 5% of the new-born. For a race of people with such a tenuous grasp of life on this unfriendly planet, to be forced into a minority within your own homeland, which is your only point of defence, is an act of criminality without precedence.

58
comments:

Is Lord Pearson now positioning himself as the British Geert Wilders'? LOL

This is blatant political opportunism of the worst kind Lord Pearson man of the people. LOL

Cynical, cynical, cynical.

Please, don't insult the poltical intelligence of the indigenous population Lord Pearson payed for the oil that lubricated the neoliberal machine that destroyed the white working class, uneducated and unwashed maybe but not STUPID.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch claimed about £100,000 in publicly-funded allowances between 2001 and 2007 to cover the cost of staying at the house in central London.

Peers can claim the £174-a-night “overnight subsistence” allowance while staying at a second home or hotel in the capital “for the purpose of attending” the Lords.

He was able to claim the money because he told Parliament that his 12,000-acre estate in Perthshire was his “main home”. However, when he sold the London house for almost £3.7 million in June 2007, he told HMRC that the property was his “principal private residence”.

This meant that he did not pay capital gains tax of 40 per cent on the profits from the sale. He said that his accountant had worked out that he would have faced a tax bill for about £275,000 had he told HMRC that the property was his second home.

If I might ask a question of you, though, I share 4Symbols confusion regarding your party affiliation: I had believed that the UKIP was a civic nationalist (race/ethnicity neutral) party, and that the BNP was the only party interested in defending the English people. Am I wrong, or are you something of an anomaly in your party?

Even if you are an anomaly, you are a welcome one, and who knows, perhaps others will join you in the UKIP. Having multiple parties expressing the same opposition to the deracination of Britain makes the position mainstream by definition.

Also, be encouraged: I am one American who is sympathetic to the mother country, and I know there are many, many more. Britain is not alone.

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here: What is happening with the native white population throughout Western Europe is a purposeful, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that's unique about Britain is that key members of the ruling party openly admit this, in writing. What Andrew Neather probably didn't realize when he said this was that he inadvertently laid the basis for a new Nuremberg process where Multiculturalism is listed as an ideology with the stated intention of the physical destruction of whites everywhere. As such it constitutes an organized crime against humanity.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for "ethnic cleansing," thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleaning of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately destroying the native population of their country. So why isn't that happening? Could it be because similar anti-white policies are followed in all white majority Western nations without exception?

It's time we realize that the humiliation, dispossession and gradual destruction of whites, from Canada to Sweden, is not the accidental result of a failed policy but the deliberate result of an evil policy, the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in recorded world history. An this is happening in the "free and democratic West." If "democracy" means the genocide of your people then what the hell is it good for? I don't like the Chinese Communist Party, but as of 2010 you could successfully argue that it is less evil than most Western authorities. No, it's not "democratic," but then neither is the EU. At least Chinese authorities are not mass importing people to rape and murder Chinese women in Chinese cities, the way Western European authorities are doing every single day to their people.

Yes, it's sad with the Tibetans and all that, but they are arguably treated more humanely and with greater respect than the white working class in the Netherlands, France or Belgium. The next time Western European authorities come with their crocodile tears for the poor Tibetans the Chinese should reply that European authorities are committing ethnic cleansing against the native population of an entire continent every single day and are in no position to complain. I promise here and now that I will write an ode to the Chinese Communist Party if they do.

After recognising the destruction of the native white population how can you then ignore the part that the leader of UKIP played in that economic and cultural destruction are we now in a fantasy that what happened in the U.K. was only commisioned in 1997 under Tony Blair and nuLabour - that would be the biggest counter-jihad mistake in history and goes against all the evidence.

The Andrew Neather letter is tongue in cheek a political red herring a rotten one that will be gutted by the truth in the future.

Independent politics is an old game in British politics, so they wont vote for me then vote for my independent doppelgänger.

@Paul Weston

I have one question for Paul Weston on the website you ambiguously state that "Sharia courts must not override UK law." will you clarify that this means UKIP policy would be to abolish all the sharia courts in the U.K. immediately.

It is worse than I ever dreamed. Britain is past the point of no return and will descend into anarchy.

We in North America are well on our way. Canadian newspapers were celebratory about reporting that the largest city, Toronto is majority non-white now. No other race or ethnic group is made to cheer its own colonization.

All the protections for minorities were written and enforced from the UN down by 3rd worlders and their white liberal sycophants to be used against whites. They will never be used to protect whites when they are the minority.

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here

I cannot take someone serious who uses the words "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" in that context. Just look at the word "genocide": "Killing" is part of the word. Now when, say, a black woman immigrates to GB and then gives birth to a child there - how is that in ANY way related to KILLING somebody??? I can only shake my head in disbelief at the vile twisted minds that could come up with such a warped comparison. Even Orwell would be baffled at that crazy attempt at Doublespeak: giving birth = killing. Ingenious.

This is racism, in it's purest and simplest form. Period. Now, you could maybe try and make the point that racism isn't all that bad and so on... but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that this isn't racisim. Really. It's just too ridiculous...

You asked if UKIP has become an English nationalist party. No they have not. They are a simply a patriotic party.

I would ask you read their thoughts on “Britishness” here:

http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/Britishness.pdf

There is no mention of abolishing Sharia courts, but there is every inference that British culture and law must take precedence.

You mock Pearson as a future Geert Wilders, and you may well be correct BUT who else is standing up to Islam save the BNP? Who invited Wilders to Britain and who now suffers from the ubiquitous Islamic death threats as a result?

Your personal distaste for Lord Pearson’s finances has little to do with the thrust of this article, so I do hope you will forgive me if I treat it with a casual insouciance.

@Bartholomewscross

Thank you for your support.

UKIP is very keen on defending the English people, not to mention the Welsh and the Scots (with a caveat on the Scots until 7pm this evening - it is our annual rugby grudge match today)

If you read the link above, you will note policies include a 5 year freeze on immigration after which entrants must prove their loyalty to country and culture.

Another policy is to disband all the “race relations” industries, abolish all “hate law” legislation and to withdraw from the disastrous EU Human Rights legislation that enables proven foreign terrorists to continue living in the UK.

Having left the EU, UKIP would throw out the EU thought police (Europol, Eurogendfor etc) abolish the European Arrest Warrant and reinstate the various illustrious regiments so savagely culled under this socialist government, including Highland Regiments.

UKIP would also replace the 1st May Bank Holiday with a St George’s Day.

I hope this answers your question as to defending the English.

@Fuchur

Curious name, curious morals.

You read an article pointing out the territorial and cultural displacement of a race of people, and your response is to make the accusation of racism.

You must hate the white race with a passion!

The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.

I imagine you have an extremely short attention span, so will repeat the UN definition of genocide for you, and the UN rights of indigenous peoples.

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

“Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;”

You see, no mention of the word killing...

Perhaps a simple yes or no question might be in order.

Do you think the UN declarations above should be applied to the indigenous English?

Yes or no.

Failure to respond might well lead people to think you a rather silly fuchur.

You said: "I knew it was bad in UK but not that bad. OMG can it be saved at all?"

Most probably not, but we have to try.

I did not project the population figures forward by more than one generation, because there are too many variables.

But IF NOTHING CHANGES then going through to 2090 would look like this:

Indigenous Population 2030:15 MillionNon-Indigenous Population 2030:23.5 Million

Indigenous Population 2060: 11 MillionNon-Indigenous Population 2060: 47 Million

Indigenous Population 2090: 8 MillionNon-Indigenous Population 2090: 94 Million

If there was sufficient money in the country, then this projection is not an impossibility, but of course there will not be.

The rate of white flight will speed up and they will take with them the money needed to prop up the non-indigenous tax eaters.

In the short term the EU will probably enact legislation designed to keep the tax payers from leaving their country or the Union, but we are pretty much bankrupt already, so that won’t really help. (The EU is already talking of an exit tax...)

The realistic probability is a break down in social order followed by full totalitarian control – something I rather suspect has always been the ultimate intention of all the ex-Communists who run the EU.

Foolish people like Fuchur really don’t seem to understand this. The hatred that is growing within the hearts of people like myself is not aimed at people with a different coloured skin who quite understandably wish to live in a wealthy country, but the cold hearted, cynical, evil white people whose actions are deliberately geared toward racial conflict in which all colours and all races will suffer, in order they may seize the power they have fantasized about ever since Lenin showed it was not merely a pipe-dream.

The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.

Genocide is a word. Words have meanings. If you don't know what a word means - don't use it. Obviously you don't know Latin... which is of course totally ok, but please don't act as if it doesn't exist just because you don't know it.

"Genocide" is a combination of the latin words "gens" (race, tribe, clan) and "caedere" (cut, kill). Which part of that don't you understand? What will you tell us next? That "homicide" and "suicide" have nothing to do with "killing"?!Or maybe that I got the meaning of "killing" all wrong?

Fuchur: OK, let's leave aside the genocide part for now. This definitely constitutes ethnic cleansing, there is no question about it. And we have seen written confirmations in Britain that this is indeed the case. These people - Tony Blair, Gordon Brown - should stand trial for what they have done and the crimes they have committed against their people. So should the rest of the EU elites if I had my way. They are supporting ethnic cleansing of the native peoples across an entire continent and are among the worst scumbags on planet Earth. I hope we have some form of legal process after the downfall of the EU.

Paul Weston: The more I study the EU the more I see what an incredibly evil organization it really is. Talk about wolf in sheep's clothing. The best thing that can happen is that the coming financial turmoil will cause the Euro, and thereafter hopefully the EU itself, to disintegrate. That may happen, but the oligarchs at the top will probably put up a fight. As bad as the EU is, we should remember that similar anti-white policies are followed in Australia and North America, too. This is bigger than the EU.

At this address you will find a translation (with due deficiencies) of a post on the Swedish site nydahlsoccident.blogspot.com that very well illustrates the feeling in this country.- - -When you now hopfully have read this short but telling piece, I would like to suggest a new and most necessary theme for blogging:

"The true right of an indigenous population to be both xenophobic and racistic."

Everybody is bragging about not being xenophobic and certainly not racistic.Even anti-islamists and critics of the mass-imigration/invasion of strange/alien folk-elements praise themself for being xenofile and antiracistic.

What bloody liers they are! What bloody self-imposters they are!

Let us go 70 years back. Was the German occupation to Denmark loved? Accepted? By the Danish people?

What is the difference to to-day's situation? One and a half million strangers have been turned loose in a country of originally 7,5 million (Sweden).

By the 'high and the mighty' - the "elite" - our "popularly elected".

But the indigenous population was never asked.

When I walk my dog in the evening I do not see them clearly/detailed with my one and only working eye, but I hear them, always loud-voiced in a not Germanic or Romance language. I feel ill at ease - I even do not feel at home. I feel like being surrounded by an occupation-force.

We indigenous people must have a right to dislike them. To dislike them for not being like us. To dislike them for their refusing to adapt, to intergrate. To dislike them for their lack of good will. To dislike them for being our exploiters. To dislike them for being hostile to us. To dislike them for behaving in practice as they are our veiled enemies. To begin with we must have the right to be xenophobic.

What is the differnce to Denmark 1940-45, or Norway at the same time period? Almost only, that we who try to object are not yet executed. I do not need to mention the jews? Our occupiers will not leave voluntarily as the Germans did when der Führer was dead. Our occupiers' two Führers (Adolphus Allah & Mo Hermann) are unfortunately immortal.

First and chiefly, differences on a genetic basis between ethnic-groups and thence different values and behaviour cannot be forbidden by law -- or eliminated by political or psychological resasoning -- or even hardly by self-assumed conduct. Neighter differences between man and woman -- differences between the male and female brain -- differences between childless women and mothers -- differences between an individual's left and right brain hemispheres, can be wiped out -- can be declared non-existing, not even by the most dedicated marxistic-socialistic so called genus-pseudo-scientists, such as those at, for example, the Södertörn's Univerity of Sweden.

@Paul WestonSigh. I'm not the biggest fan of the UN, but yes: Their definition of genocide is a sensible one, and yes, it naturally applies also to the English people. But it doesn't change anything, because the UN definition of course also defines genocide as killing people. Just read it as a whole instead of taking a single sentence out of context.

@FjordmanNo, I totally disagree. This is certainly NOT ethnic cleansing. Alone the fact that a change in the ethnic structure took place does not constitute ethnic cleansing. Even if (for argument's sake) we assume that this change was the deliberate result of some policy that still wouldn't make it ethnic cleansing. Nobody made any attempt whatsoever to "cleanse" the "indigenous" English population (leaving aside the fact that it might be rather hard to define who the indigenous English people really are...). They weren't killed or threatened or in any other way enticed to leave. I repeat: An ethnic change took place - not an ethnic cleansing.

In general, the question for me is: What's the big deal? Why care? To me, an indigenous human being is worth just as much as a non-indigenous human being (even making the difference already seems kinda stupid). Why should I be concerned about the "white race"? I'm serious: I simply don't understand it. It sounds like some kind of childish superstition to me.

My own sister lived next door to a Somali family which lived on welfare. She was violently obliged to leave. It started off when she complained about their noise (and she wasn't the only person on the street to do this) and the Somalis retaliated with a hate campaign of intimidation and disturbances, finally rounded off with a spurious accusation of racism, visits from the Police which put (Civil Service) career in jeopardy etc. Rather than fighting she simply left; one more little white mouse joins the white flight statistics.

Also the local grocery stores and pharmacies and medical centres were all Muslim run, which meant at worst being refused service for no reason other than being an uncovered woman, though usually they were very cold and hostile. That particular North London suburb was not a nice place to live for ethnic Britons, I expect to see demonically threatening op-eds appearing in the Guardian decrying "Self-Segregation" in good time.

And our elite are more than indifferent to this, they approve of it. If I complain about it I'm a racist nazi.

So yeah, maybe a new word is needed, maybe it isn't, but we, as in Ethnic Britons and not only ethnic Britons, are being subjected to a form of distributed and informal collective aggression. I've met people from Leicester and East Enders in London who have developed the burning anger and intransigent ethnic solidarity I never expected to see in mainland Britain. Nobody hears them, nobody listens.

I pull no punches with you though, these are concepts for which you have no percept. How could you understand? You're like Hillary Clinton or Joseph Biden haranguing the Serbs for rejecting and fighting against a Muslim dominated unitary Bosnian state. How could anyone possibly reject such a thing? Unless they are motivated and racism and nazism.

The English "weren't killed or threatened or in any other way enticed to leave..." And he concludes that therefore no crime has been committed.

That's a strange argument to make.

Let me explain with a story. Let's imagine a very nasty, very bullying teacher. And let's imagine a dutiful, compliant, industrious student and an indolent, calloused, parasitic student. Imagine that the teacher, for unknown reasons, has decided that the compliant, dutiful and obedient child should henceforth hand over his lunch money to his less industrious classmate so that the latter may eat. And the dutiful classmate complies.

Every day, it's the same demand from the bullying teacher, and every day, it's the same response from the cowed, obedient, dutiful child. The lazy, indolent child eats, and the dutiful, obedient child goes hungry, and the teacher never compensates him in any way for the lunch money he has surrendered.

Now, the teacher has never threatened the dutiful child, nor enticed the child to give his money away; and the teacher has certainly never killed anyone. The teacher has simply ordered the dutiful student to hand over his money, and that is what he has done.

Would you say, then, that the teacher has acted properly and is perfectly innocent? Would you say that the boy has deserved what he has gotten and has no right to complain? Would you insist the boy has not been robbed or cheated simply because, after all, he went along with it and no one "got hurt"?

What if, one day, the dutiful boy loses all sense of duty, obedience and propriety, and snaps. He tells his teacher to f--- off and tries to run away with his lunch money. Let's say that our bullying teacher does not care to be talked to like that, and she strikes him in anger and takes his money from him. Would you agree, now at least, that she has committed a crime?

So, according to your formula, all that a thief or a bullying teacher really needs to do is find a compliant, mild-mannered victim, use verbal coercion and the unarticulated threat of force, and refrain from ever actually using force, and she is innocent and acting properly, regardless of the damage that accrues to her obedient, dutiful students?

That's exactly what it's like. So long as the victim simply complies with the status quo the peace is ostensibly maintained and the oppressors can gain the fantasy satisfaction that they're actually doing an all right job.

"UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic orreligious background who wishes to identify with Britain. We reject the "blood and soil"ethnic nationalism of extremist parties. UKIP believes Britishness can be defined in termsof belief in democracy, fair play and freedom, as well as traits such as politeness."

Logically, then, anyone who claims that he a.) is polite, b.) plays fair, and c.) loves democracy and freedom is British. I think this describes a very great majority of mankind in general, don't you? Does that make most of the 6.2 billion people on earth British?

What about English monarchists (there are still a few)? Are they out? What about Edmund Burke? Samuel Johnson? I don't think they would have described themselves as democrats. Have they been excised from the ranks of Britons, past and present?

I don't mean to be rude, here, but how should Britain's electorate (of which I am not a part, by the way) reconcile your party's stated position with your very fine essay above? Does your party concern itself with the disappearance of the nations of Britain? Or is it merely interested in seeing that whoever the next inhabitants of Britain are, they be "polite," "play fair," and love "democracy and freedom"?

I realize that it's possible your party states this because it must, and that your essay reveals the true intentions of your party. But then again, the reverse is also possible.

I don't mean to impugn your character, but I don't know to trust what you say. Your intentions are well and good, but what about your party's principles? If the UKIP won power, wouldn't they govern according to party principles rather than the essay you have written? And if they did, how does that save Britain from a deluge of self-described "polite," "freedom-loving" democrats from the Third World?

The media and present UK government persecute the BNP mercilessly. Can the UKIP claim comparable battle scars? If not, why not?

I agree with Fjordman that the mass immigration/social engineering doctrine has spread to most Western nations,however I doubt that it's all an artifact of left wing politics,particularly here in Australia.There's plently of support for this pernicious notion from the Right and big business who see profit in high poulation growth,this conjuction makes the idea difficult to eliminate,given Anglo two-party systems.Politics does indeed make strange bed fellows.The only concerted opposition to mass immigration here in Oz, has, so far, been confined to the greenies,who have to be very careful to avoid the 'racist' tag.There are encouraging signs however,some of the 'natives' are beginning to realize that mass immigration of people who reject Western values might be not be a good idea unless we want to join the Third World.

"Lord Pearson has to perform over the next 12 months, and if he does not he will be challenged by people more in tune with GoV than the Womens Institute of Cake Baking."

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response, Mr. Weston. I really do appreciate it, and I hope you do not misunderstand me: I ask pointed questions because I care to think that clearly and carefully when I discuss Britain's and Europe's future. I hope that you, as an Englishman, will understand that as a sign of good will toward your nation.

Fuchur said: "...leaving aside the fact that it might be rather hard to define who the indigenous English people really are...."

In actuality, it's very easy to define who the indigenous English are. The indigenous English are the contemporary people of England, a group that was formed from the combination of Britons + Angles, Saxons & Jutes + Vikings that resulted in a population which shares certain genetic characteristics and frequencies of certain genes, and that can readily be distinguished from other groups when genetic studies are performed.

No problem whatsoever "defining" the British. They are a real folk that can be found genetically just where you'd expect them to be found -- in between the Irish/Scots/Welsh on the one hand and Germanic peoples such as the Dutch and Scandinavians on the other, with some overlap of course as is present in any set of contiguous biological populations.

Fuchur said: "Why should I be concerned about the "white race"? I'm serious: I simply don't understand it. It sounds like some kind of childish superstition to me."

You should only be concerned about the White race (no quotations necessary) if you are a White yourself, in which case the White race is your very extended family, genetically speaking. If you are a member of the White race, then you are more related to the rest of the members of the White race than you are to Asians or Blacks or Native Americans or Australian Aborigines, etc., etc.

Consider yourself. You are probably most concerned about your own welfare, as are we all, because you are most related to yourself genetically. Then you are probably most concerned about close family members -- your children (especially if they can't take care of themselves yet), your brothers and sisters -- then your cousins and more distant relations. The reason you are more concerned about your own children and your siblings than you are about your cousins is because you are more related to them. You share more genes in common with them.

Same applies to the races. Just because one is more concerned about one's children than one's cousins, though, does not mean that one isn't concerned about one's cousins -- just less so. Just because White or Black or Hispanic or Asian people are more concerned about people of their own race doesn't mean they don't have to be concerned about peoples of other races -- just less so.

It's perfectly natural. We're just talking about extended familial relationships here. Nothing superstitious about it at all. In fact, it's the most natural thing in the world. All living creatures do it. Even plants! Even bacteria!! (It's got a scientific name, btw: it's called kin selection or inclusive fitness.)

A few thousand bacterial cells or viruses can completely destroy an organism composed of trillions of cells. A tiny amount of arsenic can kill an elephant.

And cultures are also 'organisms'.

As such, the notion that they are safe from debilitation or destruction simply because 'only' 10% of their populations are foreigners is nothing less than the usual hokum espoused by the almost unbelievably ignorant leftists who deceitfully masquerade as 'liberal intellectuals'.

Goodness me. Even average 9 year olds can grasp the idea that a tiny teensy dose of something can cause positively devastating effects.

When political historians look back upon 21st century England they will most likely marvel at how an advanced manufacturing culture could produce such a tremendous number of lamp posts and yet leave them utterly under-utilized in the face of so great a demand for their alternative application.

The lamp posts are waiting.

The lamp posts are barren.

The lamp posts are needed.

The lamp posts will serve.

EileenOCnnr: You should only be concerned about the White race (no quotations necessary) if you are a White yourself, in which case the White race is your very extended family, genetically speaking.

I beg to differ. While Islam might not have any qualms about receding back to the Iron Age, many other non-White cultures around the globe would find themselves facing decimation or even extinction, should that happen and not just due to being unprotected from Muslim hands. This is with respect to how White civilization contributes so much food and medicine to undeveloped countries during times of epidemic and famine.

There are many dominoes waiting to fall once modern White cultures go out of service to mankind. The toppling of Europe's and, especially, America's ability to assist those in need would excise the base of a food chain which currently averts total disaster in such far flung and marginally subsistent Hell holes like Bangladesh or Sudan.

I doubt rather much that Islam will step up to the plate when it comes to assisting non-Muslim cultures in times if dire need. Wealthy Saudi Arabia's participation in the assistance of even Muslim countries during natural disasters is patchy at best. This, even as its financing of international terrorism propagates "man made disasters" all around the world.

No, there is quite a lot at stake for our ENTIRE PLANET should the White race be set back entirely. With their barbaric and tyrannous culture, this presents no great penalty to Muslims in general, at least not until they need industrially produced petroleum extraction equipment to keep underwriting their entire oil-based bubble economy. Need it be said that Muslims manufacture exactly none of that equipment themselves?

We'll also neglect all mention of how the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) would face MASS STARVATION WITHIN A FEW SHORT WEEKS of America, Canada and Australia halting wheat exports to that region. Collapse our respective economies and find out just how quickly that might happen. Islam's suicidal march into oblivion intends to take a maximum number of us straight into Hell with it, Muslims and kuffar alike. It is our duty to prevent this travesty, even if it should require the complete obliteration of Islam itself.

The world can survive without Islam. In its current state of modernization, our entire planet would be hard put to exist without the contributions of White culture. There can be no more plain statement of fact than this:

While I agree, this formulation fails to acknowledge that delicate cultural ecosystems such as our European civilization can easily be disrupted and destroyed.

The destruction of European civilization will necessarily beckon the Age of Barbarity - The New Dark Ages which would far supersede what occurred so many centuries ago.

To disrupt the elaborate self organizing systems that have spontaneously evolved under the umbrella of the rule of law and the sanctity of private property would necessarily result in the deaths of BILLIONS of people who could not possibly be otherwise sustained.

And who do you suppose will be blamed? Hint: who was blamed in Zimbabwe and is now being blamed in South Africa? And what will happen to those who are blamed? Can you say Zimbabwe?

Ironically, heightened racial awareness by Europeans is a necessary condition for the survival of ALL races in any kind of condition that approximates today's abundance.

The social justice and distributive justice advocates are harming precisely those whom they ostensibly wish to help. They are killing the proverbial golden goose. As goes Europe, so goes humanity. For European civilization has provided the engine which has pulled all of humanity out of its barbaric past.

Zenster said: "There are many dominoes waiting to fall once modern White cultures go out of service to mankind."

I am sure you are right, Zenster -- and I, for one, want Western civilization to survive because it gives my descendants (who will carry my genes) the best chances to survive long into the future.

But, Nature doesn't give a d*mn about how any species survives. If Western Civilization falls and many other societies come to ruin, it matters not a jot. If the people of those other societies, and our own descendants, just manage to keep alive and reproduce (and that doesn't take that much to manage to do, really), Nature will be "happy," irregardless of what horrid conditions peoples might wind up living in. Nature doesn't care at all if we all wind up living like the peoples of the Congo or Angola. Not one little bit.

Anyway -- most other peoples won't understand what you're arguing for. They see the White race as their enemy (because we are their direct competitors, even though we might be their best providers) and they aren't smart enough to have the vision to see that they need us in the ways that you have described.

Fuchur, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Genocide. This convention – with which the UK agrees remember – states “genocide means any of the following”, and lists acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. At least two of those conditions - which the UK has accepted as definitions remember - are fulfilled in Britain. The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. As you can see, the UK is pledged to punish the genocide that it is committing.In brief, the definition of genocide that is relevant to the UK is the one signed up to by the UK. That definition includes that which is being done to us. Why do you find this so hard to accept?

Which are the differences between "nationalism" and "racism"? Here, there is probabely confusion, or different ways to interpret the concepts! Is nationalism in itself a power of a nation's imperialistic character? How does it relate to racism, fascism and nazism? Are fascism and nazism included? In nationalism? Or in imperialism? And, where shall we place the violence that often is exercised by nations? Should we perhaps consider violence as a distortion of a nation's normal state, or is it the seed of racism that existed before nationalism, even before the nation itself was founded?

It seems that the concept of "nationalism" always is splitting up, is divided. There seems to be a "good" and an "evil" nationalism building up a state or a community, that enslaves, destroys, or conquers. One that is referring to justice and one that refers to power. Nationalism seems especially to enjoy being associated to liberalism! Neo-rasism in Europe and the U.S. has of course since the 1990s demanded that the people must defend their "territory", their "cultural identity", to preserve the "right distance" to what is assumed to be useless and harmful. Here the analysis of racism in relation to nationalism becomes interesting. Racism is needed to create nationalism, and ultimately the nation. The nation states were drawn up in historically disputed territories, where the rulers or the occupying forces tried to control the movements of the population and to create a "people" as a political community standing above class differences.

In fact, there is no nation - or nation state - which has an ethnic basis. All nations are without exception composed of a variety of "people" who over the centuries eighter wandered into or were forced into the national territory 'People' do not exist any more than races in a kind of natural descent, cultural community, or pre-existing mutual interests. The various peoples and regions of the nation-states must be forced into the unit established by the rulers, against the other possible and competing or hostile entities.

The different sides of racism are actually a prerequisite for nationalism. Can also movements that claim "a new European order", or "solutions to immigration problems" actually be variants of a racism which has taken new paths - but basically still are carrying on the old "superman attitude" where "Europeans" are seen as a Herrenvolk? While closing the borders for "the others" - Africans, Arabs, South Asians - in order to preserve its own prosperity, and its Volks-Gemeinshaft? Was indeed EU initially meant to be such a racist project? Today, however, the reverse seems to be the case!

Thanks for posting this article and hosting this discussion. It is needed. I am happy to see 'Gates of Vienna' is starting to address the larger set of issues of which the Islamic invasion of England is a particularly graphic example.

As Americans (which the blog owners and many of the posters are, I believe) we need to fearlessly evaluate our own position as a nation now, and take actions to ensure we don't end up where the English are today. My reading of this article says that it is probably too late for England to be saved as anything we would recognize as English.

Thus, in the American context, the focus on Islam as the primary problem facing us, is a mistake. It is not. The "ethnic cleansing of America" is taking place just as surely as that in England, but is is the mestizo's who are the primary instrument.

As Americans it is important to better understand the role of Islam in the destruction of Europe, but it is mission-critical to stop the same process here. That will require focusing on the tidal wave of immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as the organizations which promote them.

Sadly America does not yet have a serious anti-displacement party, faction or even spokesman. We need to stop focusing on the dead canary (Islam in Europe) and move on to saving the mine (USA.)

One thing you don't do, Finsals, is vote UKIP if there's a BNP or other nationalist candidate on offer in the same election. Concern about Islam and the EU is just dandy, but the more fundamental issue is our race-replacement - and the proper response to that is ethnonationalism.

Having said that, Mr Weston's post is excellent and I say again I'm pleased to see this site not merely being anti-Islamic but also pro-European (in all our diversity; pro-English posts especially welcomed by me).

I might even think about donating if you put up a load of icons making explicit your support for the various European ethnonationalisms alongside the Asian one you somewhat strangely post at the top of the blog.

You continually refer to "England" in your presentation. This is good. Problem is, UKIP is about the so-called "United" Kingdom. Other problem is, the Scots and Welsh have opted out. Listen to any Scots or Welsh politician. They will not care twopence about the (so-called) United Kingdom - beyond what said United Kingdom (or, in reality, England) will offer Scotland, or Wales. UKIP is the wrong party for you. Reconsider! Join the English Democrats - the only party which puts England first.

It is absolute complete and total rubbish - total nonsense - to suggest that Scotland is not seeing mass Third World immigration in the same way that England is. I live in Scotland and have seen it for myself. Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have significant immigrant populations.

Maybe it's not on the same scale as in England, but it's certainly happening.

no simpler and cleaner portrayal of how most of the ethnic cleansing was committed in london, through town planning if you want to kill a community of native people and supplant them with people from somewhere else, one of the most effective legal ways is to condemn there housing and destroy it and try and stack em high with cheap flats, and when they refuse the flats place foreign immigrants in them instead, the thing is with supplanting populations is the problems roll on and on and expand, deptford is still decimated today from the action of a few middle class planners in the 60's and 70's. Gates of Vienna keep fighting the media and government a large target for us, they have basically never been on the native mans side, in the side nor of the urban lower classes in general, our lives are just grist in their mill. They dont mind the lower classes as long as they are benefit dependant and manipulatable, but heaven forbid if they might have opportunities and be doing quite well then we need to destroy their communities and replace them with other foreign people who are more compliant to our middle class needs.

I am a remnant of the native english population in finsbury park (basically london ceded in all but name to foreign "communities"), cant afford family or a house to raise em in, live in a rented room and I've slipped below the radar of being able to vote to even alter the situation, as I dont appear on the council register due to my landlords shenanigans. I'd vote for UKIP for sure, as long as they would put hard caps or cease entirely on all forms of immigration to london, because all though it wont make any difference to my circumstance now, it might make a difference to some other englishman one day, though its all probably too late.

As for scotland seeing mass immigration ? please come and live in finsbury park - london, then you will see what urban scotland will look like in 20 years time if you dont get a grip on it now, and also you would at least increase by one the fellow native islanders living here.

As a brown British person (with 3 children, and more on the way hopefully)... this news makes me smile. Us brown & black folk will be nice to you, once you're the minority in Britain. Our pets... ha ha

However genocide yes shouldnt be used as it means killing but ethnic cleansing is a lose term it doesnt say by what process this is done by. If one group is replaced by another its erhnic cleansing and in most cases people move as they have no choice. Often people move as their is no longer the goods and services for them available locally or a movement into their area without their consent inevitable people from these movement groups set up their own goods and services which governments must have known about and its effects on local areas. Large movements can never be intergrated as the sheer numbers dont allow this. Locals are forced to move to go to areas which does cater for them. Most english abroad would never have moved abroad without these factors. People dont just move because the weathers nice! There are now huge english communities in other countries and most are dispondent from what is happening.